Anti-Gunners Launch Campaign Intimidating Supreme Court Over 2A Case

Now, however, the Second Amendment is back before a U.S. Supreme Court that features the strongest majority of originalists in modern times. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -( For many decades, gun control proponents who saw their fortunes wane in legislatures from coast to coast and who were unable to get traction with Congress could at least console themselves with the thought that activist courts had their backs. The Second Amendment, after all, had been all but written out of the U.S. Bill of Rights by law professors and politically-minded judges, as cities and even the U.S. Congress increasingly adopted gun control in the Twentieth Century.

But none of that could change the text, history, or tradition of the Second Amendment, which led to an unbroken and uniquely American embrace of private gun ownership as a defense against crime and tyranny and also gave rise to the popular understanding of bearing arms as a birthright of U.S. citizenship.

Those facts and that understanding were formally recognized as constitutional doctrine by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case in 2008.

But the anti-gun orthodoxy, which by then had taken hold of the U.S. legal establishment, would not relent easily. For over a decade courts have generally ignored the holding and reasoning of Heller (and its 2010 follow-up McDonald) to uphold most of the same gun control whose passage was predicated on the idea that the Second Amendment had nothing to say about individual gun ownership or use.

Now, however, the Second Amendment is back before a U.S. Supreme Court that features the strongest majority of originalists in modern times. An originalist is simply a judge who believes that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to the way they were understood by the public at the time of their adoption (as opposed to proponents of a living constitution, who basically believe the U.S. Constitution has no fixed meaning and should always yield to what the elite consider the necessities of progress and “good” policy).

This does not bode well for the respondents in the current Supreme Court case, who are stuck with arguing that the right to “bear arms” somehow allows for state and local officials to impose a “special need” for exercising the right that effectively screens out most of the law-abiding population.

With a dubious chance of prevailing on the merits, anti-gunners have adopted a tactic of not-so-thinly-veiled threats to delegitimize and even dismantle the U.S. Supreme Court itself if they don’t get their way.

Proposals to pack the court, to establish term limits for justices, to reduce the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear cases, or even to abolish the court in its current form are now in vogue on law school campuses, in opinion pieces of far left media outlets, and even in the U.S. Congress and White House.

These efforts intensified with President Trump’s appointment of three established originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are now reaching a fever pitch as the court embarks on a new term with numerous high-profile issues before it, including the scope of the right to bear arms.

Part and parcel of these efforts is trotting out luminaries of the legal world to lecture the public about the supposedly radical changes these justices are about to unleash on the country. Ironically, however, even these arguments usually devolve to the idea that the court will simply revert to an earlier status quo that was itself disrupted by activist decisions that disregarded public opinion, to say nothing of laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures.

For example, a recent op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, ominously suggests that the Supreme Court’s current make-up is the result of a sinister plot that dates back to the Nixon administration.

Besides its over-the-top rhetoric, the article contains blatant legal falsehoods that belie the author’s prestige and notoriety.

The biggest whopper is Chemerinsky’s statement, “From 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, until 2008, not one federal, state or local gun regulation was struck down.”

That statement is demonstrably false. Numerous cases invalidated various gun control laws during that time period.

For example, the Vermont Supreme Court found a license requirement for the carrying of firearms in public invalid under the state constitution in the 1903 case of State v. Rosenthal. The Green Mountain State has left the public carry of firearms essentially unregulated ever since.

The Heller decision itself catalogs others examples, including the 1846 Georgia Supreme Court case of Nunn v. State (invalidating a ban on the open carrying of pistols).

Then there are cases that found gun laws invalid for reasons other than the Second Amendment or a state right to arms, including United States v. Lopez (Supreme Court in 1995 finds Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause Power) and Printz v. United States (Supreme Court in 1997 invalidates certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act under constitutional principles of federalism).

It doesn’t take a law degree to debunk Chemerinsky’s false statement. A simple Internet browser search would suffice.

The fact that he would make such a statement therefore shows a brand of arrogance that can only come from one who sees others as inferior to himself and incapable of drawing their own rational and well-research conclusions.

There is no sense in which Chemerinsky’s statement is literally true.

But even if Chemerinsky’s statement is generously interpreted to apply only to laws invalidated under the Second Amendment, it is still false and materially misleading.

First, the above-mentioned Nunn case did rely on the Second Amendment (although it’s true it didn’t invalidate the act in question in its entirety, but only as it applied to open carry).

But the more fundamental point is that any constitutional law professor should know that courts throughout U.S. history would have seldom had occasion to consider the meaning of the Second Amendment until well into the 20th Century.

The right to keep and bear arms wasn’t particularly controversial or heavily regulated during the Founding and pre-Civil War eras.

Gun control first gained major traction in the U.S. as Southern states attempted to use prohibitory and licensing laws to selectively disarm freedmen during the Reconstruction era.

New York later followed suit in 1911 with passage of the Sullivan Act requiring a license for handguns. This time, however, the law was primary aimed at discriminating against Italian immigrants and other newly-arrived supposed undesirables.

Moreover, in 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically held that the Second Amendment applied only to actions by the federal government, which wouldn’t impose any significant gun control law until the 1930s. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision in 1894. Thus, courts were essentially barred by Supreme Court precedent from judging any gun control law under the Second Amendment for a period of over 50 years.

Heller makes this point itself:

It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. … It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS claims, … “for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.” For most of our history the question did not present itself.

When the U.S. Supreme Court finally revisited the Second Amendment in the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, there was no one even advocating on behalf of the defendant, much less on behalf of the civil right contained in the Second Amendment. It was a bizarre, one-sided case, with argument presented only by the government. But even at that, the court still issued a narrow opinion that focused only on what sorts of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, not on the people actually protected by the right or the scope of the right’s protection for various activities.

Indeed, the court’s opinion assumed that Miller as a private individual not serving in a militia had standing to raise the right in a case that concerned his transportation of a firearm across state lines. If he or his public transportation of the firearm were outside the scope of the Second Amendment, the court could have easily resolved the case on those grounds.

Simply put, there is nothing radical or activist about the U.S. Supreme Court now considering whether a person has a right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

What is radical is that any state would claim to have the authority effectively to abolish that right. Indeed, the vast majority of the states (42 out of 50, accounting for about 75% of the population) and even the District of Columbia make that right readily available, either through shall-issue licensing schemes or simply by withholding penalties for those engaging in it.

New York was determined to be an outlier, and it now may face the comeuppance it so richly deserves, one that may ironically liberate citizens who live in other restrictive states to again exercise their rights to bear.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The BOR and Constitution is all an American needs as far as “permits” go. We sure don’t need permission from the state or federal incompetent, degenerate or pencil pusher. We don’t need a FOID card or CCW, and paying a tax or fee to execute our rights is an unconstitutional infringement we won’t abide.


100% correct.


“Gun control first gained major traction in the U.S. as Southern states attempted to use prohibitory and licensing laws to selectively disarm freedmen during the Reconstruction era.” Hmm, that’s very interesting. I don’t know if the writer of this article was aware that the Lincoln administration, on the onset of the civil war disarmed entire populations in Maryland, attempted the same in Missouri, and countless other Americans in various states had their rights suspended and arms seized in “red flag” style arrests and confiscations. But hey, the “democrats are the real racists” right? Not to disrespect Lincoln, the union side,… Read more »

Wild Bill

I knew that Lincoln used the army to break up printing presses of newspapers that he did not like in Maryland, at the beginning of that war. And he suspended the right of habeas corpus; instituted a income tax; and began a draft; all of which were unconstitutional at the time. I did not, however, know that he disarmed entire populations in Maryland and tried in Missouri. Interesting.

Capn Dad

Lincoln arrested all the state legislators in Maryland for their secession views and imprisoned them in federal jails for the duration of the war. He arrested those in Kentucky that had secessionist views. He dispatched federal troops and raised troops in Missouri thereby running out those state legislators who had secessionist views. Interestingly, Lincoln as a lawyer in Charleston, IL represented, for five dollars, a slave owner who had pursued a runaway and was being protected by abolitionists. In court he argued that the slave owner under then current Illinois law was entitled to recover his property. He won the… Read more »

Wild Bill

I did not know that. Carl Sandburg did not mention that. Thanks for sharing!


Lincoln worked for the Masonic Masters of the Union. That’s why he sits on a throne. That’s also why it’s purported that John Wilkes Booth shouted Sic Semper Tyrannis after Albert Pike allegedly put hit on Lincoln.

Twistory leaves cryptic clues for those that read & research the Pharaonic convoluted ruling aristocracy oligarchy of description known as the hidden hand.


Lincoln worked for the industrialists ,the south had cheep labor no place to sell the tractors and new steam powered things , the south had no need Europe had protective tariffs, get rid of slaves make a market to sell your stuff.1968 gun control act put in place after 1934 act invalidated under 5th amendment keep people from ability to defend themselves from government attack (nasty guard killed students in ohio) lbj pos


The industrialist’s are the Central Banking system Kharzarian Mafia of Masonic Zionism who hide the Hidden Hand in several different coined terms & cryptic narratives. ‘industrialist’s” = Rockefeller/Rothschild/Vanderbilt/Ford/Strauss/Carnegie/Rhodes/DuPont et alia & ALL are members of various Secret Societies. Things are not what they seem b/c people generally stop they’re research after reading contrived narratives of paid scribes/journalist’s rather than research in the esoteric occult symbolism & words they use to conceal the coterie’s cipher codex. Like peeling the layers of an Onion so too is the way that the ruling EL-ite aristocracy hide their methods & tools. Jungian Alchemy reveals… Read more »

Wild Bill

People make up a lot of “clues”, too, so that they can sell books or get paid for their blogs.


Of course they do & real clues exist as well. Occulted esoteric knowledge exist’s & that’s precisely why it’s hidden there in the forbidden books of knowledge. We are living in an epoch of time where those who know the Hidden Hand’s codes are speaking up & making an effort to help other’s learn about it.

I’m reminded about a quote: Something about for Evil to prevail all that’s necessary is for good men to do nothing.

Ego divides & separates, Spirit heals & unifies.

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

Wild Bill

What are the titles of these forbidden books? Who wrote them? Why did the authors write them? Who did the forbidding. If the books are forbidden, how is it that anyone has one now?


Bible already tells you there is a forbidden fruit aka Book of Knowledge. The abundant symbolism is everywhere. Just b/c you don’t perceive it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Books written by Albert Camus, Arthur Koestler, William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway, Oscar Wilde, Phillip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, Bertrand Russell, Anthony Sutton, Robert Anton Wilson. Sir Francis Drake. My Spidey Senses tell me your not that well read. Don’t play the victim for the circumstances you created. The Kabbalah is the Gematria codex they have used for over… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Tank
Wild Bill

Your “Spidey” sense is quite wrong. I just don’t buy into occult, mythological, or speculation based writings. If a thing can not be observed, tested, verified and duplicated, then it is false.


Your comment shows & proves exactly my point – QED. My “Spidey Senses” were quite right actually. All of those authors of the books I presented were quite prolific & successful. Billions of copies of their writings were purchased & read by hundreds of millions, (perhaps billions) of human beings world wide. Many of those books were transformed into movies that also made BILLIONS of $$$. Phillip K. Dick is one of Ziowood’s most acclaimed sources for movies that were box office record $$$ makers. e.g. Blade Runner, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau, THX1138, DUNE etc. Again QED. If other… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Tank
Wild Bill

That is funny!


Yes this is correct. Other books included Animal Farm, 1984, Kurt Vonnegut’s works (Cat’s Cradle, Slaughter House Five, Breakfast of Champions.

These were not serendipitous accidents either. They are part of the programming & influence “force of power” Tavistock Institute of a Human Relations quote literally has. If a school requires reading of a book it’s not by accident as we are seeing what today’s schools are producing & incremental dumbing down of America’s children.


It’s also hidden in the Kabbalah’s codex under Tree of Life & Tree of Knowledge / Zohar / / Babylonian & Solomon Talmudic Teachings / DAATH / Sepira/Sefirot etc. i.e. Chabad Lubevitche & Hassidic sectarian Religions. #1 #2 # 3 But I digress & my Spidey Senses tells me you you have never read those or wi read them or even attempted to understand they’re esoteric wisdom/knowledge & deeper meanings. I could go on & on give you copius examples of what they actually are but what’s the point you won’t acknowledge they even exist by your… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Tank

Lincoln trampled all over civil rights, arresting dissidents, including elected officials, closing down opposition newspapers, and suspending habeas corpus. Not sure what that has to do with racism, pro-secessionists were the targets of the abuses.


My gun rights are not up for discussion! They were guaranteed by my creator. Any government official who even speaks out about Gun control should be hung! It’s my constitutional right to carry a weapon- just in case the government goes tyrannical! I want all my rights back. Repeal the NFA, treasonous politics. Tarred, feathered and executed should send a nice message to the rest of the corrupt politicians


l don’t trust SCROTUS one singIe inch.


Our fore fathers gave us something that they brought forth from experience, The Bill of Rights. In today’s world those rights are being trampled on by greed and a lust for power never before seen in our history. Now, the only thing standing between our freedom and communism, is the second amendment. It is all on the line, do we remain silent, or do we stand up for our rights? The left wants us to remain silent, history has shown what happens to populations that remain silent in the face of socialist, communistic endeavors. Giving in to the communists will… Read more »


Even if the Supreme Court rules NY’s highly restrictive gun regulation invalid, NY, NJ, IL and the other likewise states, will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow lessening of the rules for law-abiding citizens. It could end up years before you see relief. Hyper- partisans, like Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Hochul. Murphy, Soros,, won’t give up so easily. Leftists aren’t allowed to surrender.

Last edited 11 months ago by Wass

They are to stupid to surrender. They will burn with their ship and take all their constituents with them. They will make their constituents drink the Cool-aide.